Regional Officer Amendment to the Bill of Rights

[Eluvatar]

Considering my Executive Reform bill, and examining writings I'm drafting on the Bill of Rights, I realized our language in the latter has developed a possible loophole.

The WA Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code.

Proposed bill: (version 6)

1. Clause 8 of the Bill of Rights will be amended to the following:

8. The regional power of ejection and banning may not be granted or exercised, nor forum bans imposed, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation is entitled to prompt judicial review of the matter.

Annotated:

8. No nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as The regional power of ejection and banning may not be granted or exercised, nor forum bans imposed, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security they may order the ejection or banning of the nation. Any ejected or banned nation shall have is entitled to prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The WA Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code.

Spoiler: v5

1. Clause 8 of the Bill of Rights will be amended to the following:

8. The regional power of ejection and banning shall not be granted or exercised, nor forum bans imposed, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt recourse to judicial review of the matter.

Spoiler: v4

1. Clause 8 of the Bill of Rights will be amended to the following:

8. No nation may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum; nor may they be granted the power to eject or ban from The North Pacific; nor may they use that power, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt recourse to judicial review of the matter.

Spoiler: v3

1. Clause 8 of the Bill of Rights will be amended to the following:

8. No nation may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum; nor may they be granted the power to eject or ban from The North Pacific; nor may they use that power, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code.

Spoiler: v2

1. Clause 8 of the Bill of Rights will be amended to the following:

8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. No person shall grant or exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code.

Spoiler: v1

1. Clause 8 of the Bill of Rights will be amended to the following:

8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security they may order the ejection or banning of the nation. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. No person shall grant or exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code.

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

"Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter."

Does this include nations banned for violating NS rules, spamming the board or adspamming?

 

[Eluvatar]

Yes, as is the case currently. This has always been the law.

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

<nods> Just double checking.

 

[Eluvatar]

Any concerns on my extending the restriction to granting, as well as using, the power to eject or ban nations?

 

[falapatorius]

For clarity's sake I'd consider the following changes (red bolding mine):

8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security they may, with the approval of the Court, order the ejection or banning of the nation. Any nation ejected or banned under the preceding circumstance shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. No person shall grant or exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code.

The reason I suggest these changes is this proposal is strikingly similiar with this section of the Legal Code:

9. The Delegate may eject and/or ban a particular nation from the region pending criminal charges against them, or prior to the conclusion of an ongoing criminal trial in which they are the defendant, only when that nation poses a clear security threat and their removal is necessary for the protection of the region.
10. The Delegate must seek the approval of the Court for any such ejection or ban. Where possible, this approval must be sought prior to the nation's removal from the region. Otherwise, it must be sought within one day of the action.

The context is different (criminal trial procedure), but symmetry is desirable imo.

Any concerns on my extending the restriction to granting, as well as using, the power to eject or ban nations?

Nope.

 

[Eluvatar]

That would actually make the Bill of Rights limit the ejection power significantly more. I believe it'd require us to involve the Court in the Reckless Endorsement Gathering law, which it currently isn't.

 

[falapatorius]

That would actually make the Bill of Rights limit the ejection power significantly more. I believe it'd require us to involve the Court in the Reckless Endorsement Gathering law, which it currently isn't.

I could see Court involvement prior to ejection or banning in this particular situation might not be necessary (if all conditions spelled out by

Spoiler: Section 5.4 of the Legal Code

Section 5.4: Endorsement Gathering
20. The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which meets all of the following criteria:

It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
It has been reported to the Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate or 75 per cent of the Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.

21. The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count.
22. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside The North Pacific.
23. Non-incumbent candidates for Delegate or Vice Delegate may not obtain an endorsement level during the election cycle greater than the level authorized for members of the Security Council under this chapter.

are met).

The SC has a protocol for immediate threats:

Spoiler: Article 7: Immediate Threats

a. Council votes on immediate and pressing threats to regional security, including official reports and recommendations, may be kept private for as long as the Chair determines that public release would escalate the immediacy or danger of the threat.
b. At its discretion, the Council may hold formal discussions and voting on such matters outside of the official regional forum.
c. Once the danger has passed, the Chair is required to publicly report all private votes and their results.

I think the Delegate and the SC are well prepared to deal with security threats through various legislation and procedures. SC members only need border control powers in an emergency situation, as provided by the Legal Code:

Spoiler: Section 9.4: WA Delegacy

13. The resignation, recall, or loss of World Assembly membership of the legal or acting Delegate, or any capture of the delegacy of The North Pacific by any nation not the legal or acting Delegate, shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
14. Delegacy emergencies that fall outside the scope of the above clause may be declared by majority vote of the RA only with the recommendation of the legal or acting Vice Delegate, in consultation with the Security Council.
15. During a delegacy emergency, the legal or acting Delegate may authorize any individual in the Line of Succession to hold the delegacy and to take any actions related to that position, including, but not limited to, voting in the World Assembly, moderating the Regional Message Board, and ejecting and banning nations from the region.
16. The in-game Delegate must follow any instructions from the legal or acting Delegate as to the execution of their powers.

I know your reasoning behind this is to close a loophole in a yet be passed piece of legislation, but I think (in it's current form) it will add to an already convoluted Constibillicode.

 

[Eluvatar]

Your proposed text would require Court approval prior to any ejection or banning, as I'm reading it.

It is your proposal that would, I believe, make matters more convoluted.

 

[falapatorius]

Your proposed text would require Court approval prior to any ejection or banning, as I'm reading it.

With regard to security threats only (which your proposal addresses), yes.

It is your proposal that would, I believe, make matters more convoluted.

I disagree. Anyway, it's your proposal. I was just offering some changes and hopefully encouraging some people to actually research the issue before voting to amend the BoR (which should not be taken lightly). It's obvious you don't agree with the suggestions, so fine. At this point, I'll vote Nay. I think you should amend the Executive Reform Bill instead of the BoR. It seems a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[Eluvatar]

falapatorius, without this change, there is no explicit bill of rights protection against ROs appointed by the Delegate banjecting nations from The North Pacific. This is not intended to close a loophole in the Executive Reform Bill. There is no such loophole. The Executive Reform Bill would dovetail with this bill, that is true, but we currently have no explicit limitations on who can be granted Border Controls nor what they can do with them.

Now, obviously, there are other laws we can work from, but that makes any such legal fight murkier. I would rather extend the prohibition that exists in our bill of rights against the Delegate banning whomever they like to cover Regional Officers.

I do not understand your position on this bill.

A change to require prior judicial approval for ejections even in cases of regional security could be made separately. I don't think it'd be prudent, but it's not relevant to this bill.

 

[SillyString]

Elu: If we're amending that clause, can I point out the major issues with "Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation..."

Aside from the poor grammar (dat comma do..), it has never been clear what a government authority of the region with authority to act is, nor who might be an official thereof. Is it the delegate, and the delegate? the security council and any sc member? the sc and the vd? the court? WHO IS IT AND WHEN.

It's also kinda problematic for similar reasons that the previous law permitting the delegate to ban someone without criminal charges being brought against them was problematic. I'd rather see that refined to be more clear - for example, requiring the delegate and the sc to both agree, or something like that. Not a foolproof measure against corruption, but... better.

 

[Eluvatar]

The Bill of Rights is intended to use language such that regardless of how we change things around in the constitution or legal code, it keeps working.

The effect of the language of this particular clause (ignoring RO/Delegate questions) is to:

1. Require explicit legal authority for ejections and/or bans.
2. Require declarations to that effect for ejections for regional security reasons.
3. Allow any ejected nations to appeal for judicial review.
4. Require specific action by legal authority to order any specific ejection or ban.

It does not define who has authority to act: that's defined in chapter 5 of the legal code.

This clause of the Bill of Rights does not grant anyone any authority to eject or ban: it limits how such authority can be granted.

Is it needlessly wordy and repetitive? Probably. But right now, I just want to fix the language that's inconsistent with the existence of Regional Officers. If you want to rewrite the clause to be shorter or clearer or something, I'd suggest making a new, separate, bill for that.

 

[falapatorius]

without this change, there is no explicit bill of rights protection against ROs appointed by the Delegate banjecting nations from The North Pacific.

The best protection against that is to not give them Border Control powers (a view I strongly advocate). Barring that, I'd prefer amending the Legal Code and/or Constitution first.

This is not intended to close a loophole in the Executive Reform Bill. There is no such loophole.

I misread that in the OP.

It does not define who has authority to act: that's defined in chapter 5 of the legal code.

With regard to reckless endorsement gathering, yes. Is that the only situation considered a threat to regional security? If so, then the BoR clause should be amended to reflect that as well.

I do not understand your position on this bill.

I just think it's inappropriate to amend the BoR (without carefully considering the legal ramifications) because your proposed Executive Reform Bill introduces Border Control powers for 3 SC members, which conflicts with Clause 8:

Spoiler: Section 7.2: Regional Officers (Executive Reform Bill)

5. Regional Officers may only be appointed and granted powers as explicitly allowed under this section.
6. The Serving Delegate may assign any Regional Power, with the exception of Border Control, to any Executive Officer.
7. The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any of the three members of the Security Council earliest in the Order of Succession.

Spoiler: BoR Clause 8

8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security they may order the ejection or banning of the nation. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The WA Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code.

I think other conflicts will arise as a result of amending the BoR as you propose:

Spoiler: Conflict 1 - Article 3; Clause 2; TNP Constitution

2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.

Spoiler: Conflict 2 - Section 3.3; Legal Code

Section 3.3: Criminal Trial Procedure

9. The Delegate may eject and/or ban a particular nation from the region pending criminal charges against them, or prior to the conclusion of an ongoing criminal trial in which they are the defendant, only when that nation poses a clear security threat and their removal is necessary for the protection of the region.
10. The Delegate must seek the approval of the Court for any such ejection or ban.

Spoiler: Conflict 3 - Section 5.4; Legal Code

Section 5.4: Endorsement Gathering

20. The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which meets all of the following criteria:

a. It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
b. It has been reported to the Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
c.It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
d. It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate or 75 per cent of the Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.

(all bolding mine)

Furthermore, I believe it would be inappropriate for an SC member (RO in this case) to be party to determining if there is a security threat, and then executing the ejection/ban. (judge, jury, and executioner, as it were)

Anyway, I can see the why of this proposal, but I'm not comfortable with the how.

 

[Eluvatar]

The executive reform bill does not depend on this change in any way. No language in the bill of rights prohibits granting border control powers.

Under current law, the Delegate is a party to determining whether a ban is necessary for regional security: they can decline to ban a nation which has more endorsements than the Vice Delegate, or which has otherwise met the criteria for Reckless Endorsement Gathering.

Under current law, there is no law regarding Regional Officers or Border Control powers. Theoretically, the Delegate could do whatever they like.

 

[SillyString]

Um... I agree with falapatorius here.

I don't think this has happened before.

I do not believe that that clause in the BoR is currently regulated in the same way that you do. I think it could be vasty improved.

If you would not like to specify things - which I can see the argument for - might I suggest removing it entirely and shuffling things around? I do not think we need to write into the law that "any official of any body empowered to act" may order the banning ofy nation at any time. That is not a right, it's a power, and I believe it is sufficiently covered by the part about how ejections and bannings must be done in accordance with regional law. We can then write into the legal code and constitution whatever specific circumstances are permitted - as of now, very few. So I suggest:

8. No Nation shall may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security they may order the ejection or banning of the nation. Any ejected or banned nation shall have has a right to prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. No person shall grant or exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized to do so by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to by the Constitution or to the Legal Code.

As a note, I think this clause (as it stands now or as amended) may have bad implications for admins' discretion. Nowhere in the Constibillicode do we actually say that they can set their own policies around forum behavior.

Note that I hate with a fiery passion the word "shall", so I have suggested replacing it with something much clearer in both cases, and I am not entirely sure about the last bit ("specific action") but it's also incredibly unclear what it ever meant to refer to so I prefer taking it out.

 

[Eluvatar]

Constitution 8.2 "Violation of forum Terms Of Service and moderation policies will be the responsibility of forum administration."

In your alternate version you need to change the grammar of the final "to the Legal Code."

If people are comfortable with completely rewriting clause 8 rather than patching it, as we have done in the past, I will find Sillystring's suggestion friendly.

Edit: Here is where the historical BoR patch I mention comes up in that topic.

 

[falapatorius]

Um... I agree with falapatorius here.
I don't think this has happened before.

:boom

I do not think we need to write into the law that "any official of any body empowered to act" may order the banning of a nation at any time. That is not a right, it's a power, and I believe it is sufficiently covered by the part about how ejections and bannings must be done in accordance with regional law. We can then write into the legal code and constitution whatever specific circumstances are permitted - as of now, very few.

This is a better idea imo.

Under current law, there is no law regarding Regional Officers or Border Control powers. Theoretically, the Delegate could do whatever they like.

I''m not sure that's true. There's no provisions yet regarding ROs having the ability to ban/eject anyone, true, but currently only the Delegate is allowed to do so under TNP Law. At this point, the Delegate may indeed appoint who they like as RO, but that's on them. That raises more questions about ROs though. Should they at least be citizens of TNP? Elected? Should they even have Border Control powers? Are they government officials sworn to the same oaths as the rest of us? Perhaps, before we start amending the Law, we should discuss the viability of ROs (in the context of TNP government) in general? Legislation can evolve from that.

 

[Eluvatar]

On second thought, we can probably get rid of the sentence we were arguing about entirely, and it works. I hope. (Proposal updated).

Edit: Question is, do we also want to take up SillyString's cleanup suggestions, like this:

8. No Nation shall may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation shall have has a right to prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. No person shall may grant or exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized to do so by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to by the Constitution or to the Legal Code.

I'm actually concerned that this revised language may require those performing ejections and bannings to be making the decisions to do so.

 

[SillyString]

I do not believe my language creates any requirement to ban - the usage "may" is explicitly and solely permissive.

 

[Eluvatar]

You misunderstand my concern.

I'm concerned that this will require those who make the decision to be the same persons executing the decision.

In other words, that the bill of rights will inadvertently prohibit an official making a decision to eject and ban that they are not themselves capable of executing.

I'm concerned this could be used to challenge a court sentence of ejection and banning. (Which, by law, must be executed).

 

[SillyString]

Mmm, I see what you mean now. How about:

8. No nation may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. No nation may be granted the power to eject or ban from The North Pacific unless expressly authorized to hold and use that power by the Constitution or the Legal Code. No nation empowered to eject or ban from The North Pacific may use that power unless expressly authorized to do so by the Constitution, the Legal Code, or the court.

We could condense that a little bit, but some of the specifics get lost if we do:

8. No nation may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum; nor may they be granted the power to eject or ban from The North Pacific; nor may they use that power, unless expressly authorized by the Constitution, the Legal Code, or the court.

 

[Eluvatar]

Hm, I think we've tried to avoid naming any specific government bodies or offices in the Bill of Rights to the extent this is possible. See:

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.

Would it be sensible to word it like this?

8. No nation may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum; nor may they be granted the power to eject or ban from The North Pacific; nor may they use that power, unless expressly authorized by the Constitution, the Legal Code, or a judicial process thereunder.

 

[SillyString]

I'm not sure. Maybe.

 

[falapatorius]

Sigh. How about:

8. No nation may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum, unless expressly authorized by TNP Law.

No legal skullduggery or political chicanery here. Pretty straight-forward imo. As I said earlier, legislation could evolve from that.

 

[Flemingovia]

I am in a field on holiday in Dorset and mobile reception is patchy. Does this bill seek to alter admin powers to forum ban in any way? I cannot check as pages keep refusing to open.

 

[Eluvatar]

It does not seek to, but it theoretically accidentally could.

 

[Flemingovia]

It would be good to prevent that accident in advance, to forestall potential conflict between admin and courts.

 

[Eluvatar]

Falapatorius, do you believe a bill of rights requirement that regional officer border control powers only be handed out as expressly authorized by the laws is unnecessary?

 

[falapatorius]

I don't think Border Control provisions are unnecessary, but I also don't think they should be in the BoR. I thought I made that clear .

Still against.

 

[Romanoffia]

It would be good to prevent that accident in advance, to forestall potential conflict between admin and courts.

Considering that the courts have no jurisdiction over the Admins, per se.

 

[Eluvatar]

My opinion is that given that the Bill of Rights explicitly requires ejections to be authorized by law, it would be appropriately analagous for it to require the granting of border control powers to be equally authorized.

My theory is that the Bill of Rights is guarding against a theory of the inherent powers of the Delegate, by explicitly negating any such theory's implications in our most sacred law. The Bill of Rights says that despite game mechanics giving the Delegate the power to eject, we refuse, as a community, to say that power belongs to them: it belongs to the region, and they may use it only on behalf of the region, as the region dictates through its laws.

I don't see any difference, in this view, between the ejection button and the appointment button. It's just as easy for a Delegate to argue that the power to appoint officers is theirs by game mechanics, and any statutes are overriden by their executive privilege.

Now, perhaps we don't need this sort of militant constitutionalism anymore. Or perhaps there's some subtle difference I'm missing, that means Border Controls don't need the same level of scrutiny.

I'm interested in what others think on these points.

 

[SillyString]

I am in agreement with you on this, which I think you know.

Heck, I'm mildly uncomfortable with letting the delegate give *anyone* else the power to ban, excluding a delegate-elect.

 

[falapatorius]

My opinion is that given that the Bill of Rights explicitly requires ejections to be authorized by law, it would be appropriately analagous for it to require the granting of border control powers to be equally authorized.

I don't see that tbh. The issue with BCOs is the ability to perform ejections. Currently, they cannot (without running afoul of the Law). Personally, I think GCRs shouldn't have BCOs. They are founder-less, so why not BCO-less? But that's a discussion for NS admins and mods.

It's just as easy for a Delegate to argue that the power to appoint officers is theirs by game mechanics, and any statutes are overriden by their executive privilege.

In The Pacific maybe, but here that would be grounds for recall and/or criminal charges. We have an off-site gov't, don't we? But I digress. Looking at statutes in the Constitution:

8. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.

The bolded part is significant imo, as it would be the Delegate appointing BCOs.

Furthermore:

1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.

and from the Legal Code:

24. There will be an Executive Officer charged with the North Pacific's foreign affairs. They will ensure the continued operation of any embassies of the North Pacific and will report on events in the region.
25. There will be an Executive Officer charged with military affairs. They will carry out such legal missions as are authorized by the Delegate, expressly or categorically.

as well as this Court ruling. I will quote the relevant section:

The Court opines the following:
Opinion Part 1 - With respect to the Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General, Appointed Ministers, Appointed Deputy Speaker/Ministers, and Appointed Deputy Attorney Generals
The positions of Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General and their applicable deputies all have specific powers outlined by The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code.
Article 6 of the Constitution notes that all government officials shall swear an oath of office. This oath is the requirement to assume a position giving the officeholder authority and powers beyond the ability to introduce legislation and vote in elections which are conferred to members of the Regional Assembly.
Furthermore, Bill of Rights numbers 4, 5, 8 describe the recourse methods for nations believing they have been aggrieved by government officials. This Court finds that the expressed and implicit intent of these rights are to ensure all named and appointed by named offices within TNP law be subject to the provisions of the Bill of Rights. The Court finds that these positions are government officials and are subject to this provision.

Given these statutes, and precedent (whether you agree with it or not), the BoR is sufficient imo. Sure, BCOs are a new reality, and could cause some headaches vis a vis 'government officials'. However, I believe that could be remedied by Constitutional and/or Legal Code amendments. There are 2 mandatory Ministries thus far, and other appointments by CMEOs may be regulated by Law. I believe your proposed LC amendment here is intended to do just that as it pertains to BCOs. While I'm not prepared to endorse that amendment as it is atm, it is preferable to tinkering with the BoR. Of particular concern to me:

8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security they may order the ejection or banning of the nation. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. No person shall grant or exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code.

Currently, only the Delegate can exercise the power of ejection, and may not grant that power to anyone. I prefer it that way. I think it was mentioned that this new provision would be useful if the Delegate wasn't around to perform an ejection of a security threat, and would allow the VD or SC to perform the ejection. A legitimate concern I suppose (if everyone was asleep at the switch and/or negligent ), but it also opens the door for other ways to grant the power of ejection.

tl;dr version: I can't support this. I prefer the BoR as is.

 

[Eluvatar]

The BoR as it is does not prohibit granting border control powers to others, and does not explicitly prohibit border control officers from ejecting without alegal authority.

 

[SillyString]

It kind of does, though - all nations are protected against banjection unless that is explicitly authorized by law/court order/etc, and the law only ever grants the delegate rights to ban anybody. The one exception, maybe, would be if the Court ordered the Vice Delegate to ban someone, but that'd be... a weird state of affairs.

 

[Eluvatar]

You're right, they would be protected by the first sentence of the clause.

 

[Eluvatar]

How about this:

8. No nation may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum; nor may they be granted the power to eject or ban from The North Pacific; nor may they use that power, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code.

"Authorized pursuant to" meaning, I think, that the authorization follows the rules set by those documents, but not that it is necessarily an automatic condition specified under them or a discretionary determination by a regional official empowered under them.

 

[SillyString]

I think that should work?

 

[Eluvatar]

It feels like prohibiting any nation being banjected and prohibiting any nation banjecting is redundant o_o